Comments on: On Becoming Great

By: This Is The Bridge – And I Must Cross It

This Is The Bridge – And I Must Cross It — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:17:48 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Grok

Grok — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:22:11 +0000

Great article. Thanks Vin for referring me here.
Grok´s last blog ..Got Pests? Grok Doesn’t!

By: Vin - NaturalBias

Vin - NaturalBias — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:26:04 +0000

Great article, Stephen! The 10,000 hour / 10 year rule is often referenced by tennis authors. I’m fascinated by the idea of a lack of talent being compensated for by intelligent practice. I have Colvin’s book, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I agree that talent certainly isn’t irrelevant, but you can definitely still accomplish a lot without it.

I suppose it depends on personality to an extent, but I actually enjoy deliberate practice, especially with tennis. Granted, it can be unpleasant when pressured into practicing more than you’d like, but I tend to naturally be a hard worker and have a high tolerance for this. I could very easily practice tennis for 1 or 2 hours every day and be very happy about doing so. In fact, this is one thing that I’d definitely like to have enough time to do in the future.

Another interesting concept that relates to this is, but is from a somewhat opposing perspective, is focusing on your strengths. If you’re naturally pretty awful at something, even though you can still make significant improvements with a dedicated effort, it will likely be an uphill battle and may be more frustrating overall than rewarding. This is at least the philosophy behind StrengthsFinder 2.0 which suggests that you focus on your natural talents instead.
Vin – NaturalBias´s last blog ..Should We Trust the FDA?

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:23:44 +0000

Hi Paul. I agree and disagree. I certainly don’t think there is a “basketball” gene. But I do think there is a set of genes that yield natural athletic talent such as jumping ability or speed. You only have to look at the differences among young children to see that.

Clearly there are differences in each of us that we are born with. That can’t help but lead to different natural talents. Those talents are not specific necessarily but general talents that can be used for specific activities, such as basketball, or chess or whatever.

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:14:18 +0000

Hi Steven. It came through clear to us I was thinking about the visualization too. Some studies have shown it to be almost as good as real practice. Thanks for stopping by.

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:12:16 +0000

Hi Eduard, I prefer my natural talents too. But it’s nice to know that you can do anything you want if you stay at it long enough.

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:10:09 +0000

Hi Nea. I don’t think anyone could really practice that much unless they truly loved what they were doing

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:08:01 +0000

Thanks Tristin and I think you have it right.

By: Stephen Mills

Stephen Mills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:02:15 +0000

Hi Lisis, thanks for commenting on this. I’m so freaking old if I started my 10K hours I’d probably drop dead before I was done

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:47:24 +0000

I think the term ‘talent’ is misunderstood. Instead of having a talent for a particular skill, such as basketball, those who excel have a talent for the work required to become great. Not so much the gift of a particular skill, but the gift of setting a goal, learning what needs to be practiced, and striving for continuous improvement.

If the measure of the goal is too external, such as being better than another person, I suspect that won’t work as well as a goal of improving upon a previous best effort. Yet, without external measures, how does a person know if they are improving?

Thanks for the thoughtful article.